Gorillexistentialism

[Chesterton]

Scientists Successfully Teach Gorilla It Will Die Someday | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network

 

[Legion.As.One]

That is really sad.
Ignorance is sometimes bliss.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Legion.As.One,

The Onion is satire.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is really sad.
Ignorance is sometimes bliss.

"Quigley's 2000+ vocabulary has proven insufficient to express his emptiness."

LOL

Question: is that a real gorilla? I can't tell.

Also, are there any vids of real gorillas signing? I know they can, but I've never seen it done.

 

[Chesterton]

Also, are there any vids of real gorillas signing? I know they can, but I've never seen it done.

I looked around and couldn't find anything but little snippets of videos, couldn't find one which actually showed detailed signing.

Do you believe gorillas are actually communicating when they sign? The science seems dubious. How could we ever tell that they aren't just doing a trick for a reward as lots of animals can do?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I looked around and couldn't find anything but little snippets of videos, couldn't find one which actually showed detailed signing.

Do you believe gorillas are actually communicating when they sign? The science seems dubious. How could we ever tell that they aren't just doing a trick for a reward as lots of animals can do?

I've read the research, and it sounds pretty convincing (though I'm no behavioural scientist). It's like a human learning a foreign language: we can tell when a human is just repeating a stock phrase, and actually comprehending the underlying grammar and vocabulary. Likewise with gorillas. I remember reading about one gorilla, Koko I think, who asked for a pet kitten. Such a request wasn't exactly in the "How to speak Human in 30 days" book .

 

[Chesterton]

I've read the research, and it sounds pretty convincing (though I'm no behavioural scientist). It's like a human learning a foreign language: we can tell when a human is just repeating a stock phrase, and actually comprehending the underlying grammar and vocabulary. Likewise with gorillas. I remember reading about one gorilla, Koko I think, who asked for a pet kitten. Such a request wasn't exactly in the "How to speak Human in 30 days" book .

Asked for a kitten huh? Did they mention that before and after asking for a kitten Koko had said things like "apple leg fire" 100 times? Maybe he got lucky and put words in order once. Seriously, I've read critics that say these signing gorillas produce a ton of nonsense, and researchers often pick out bits that make sense.

 

[brinny]

This is not funny.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Asked for a kitten huh? Did they mention that before and after asking for a kitten Koko had said things like "apple leg fire" 100 times? Maybe he got lucky and put words in order once. Seriously, I've read critics that say these signing gorillas produce a ton of nonsense, and researchers often pick out bits that make sense.

That would indeed invalidate the study. But the fact that Koko is still alive and anyone can go up to her and talk to her renders that moot. She is also able to make new words to describe new things using a pre-existing vocabulary, which demonstrates her comprehension of those words.

 

[Chesterton]

I think Koko doesn't know what she's talking about. Literally.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think Koko doesn't know what she's talking about. Literally.

I'm inclined to believe the researchers. True, there's the window for systematic error (selecting 'promising' phrases, when she just reeled off random signs), but I don't think it's right to dismiss researchers as fraudulent without reason. Besides, I'm no expert, so I'll defer to those who are.

I can almost hear AV running up with a bottle of Thalidomide in his pocket...

 

[Chesterton]

I'm inclined to believe the researchers. True, there's the window for systematic error (selecting 'promising' phrases, when she just reeled off random signs), but I don't think it's right to dismiss researchers as fraudulent without reason. Besides, I'm no expert, so I'll defer to those who are.

I can almost hear AV running up with a bottle of Thalidomide in his pocket...

Aside from fraud, or some liberal interpretation of things due to wishful thinking, how could one ever know an animal is actually using language rather than just "doing things" for reward? If you teach Koko some hand configuration for "blue", then teach her to make that configuration in response to the question "what is your favorite color", it will appear that she's answering, but how would we know?

 

[Gracchus]

Aside from fraud, or some liberal interpretation of things due to wishful thinking, how could one ever know an animal is actually using language rather than just "doing things" for reward? If you teach Koko some hand configuration for "blue", then teach her to make that configuration in response to the question "what is your favorite color", it will appear that she's answering, but how would we know?

And how does one know that Christians actually believe rather than just claiming to believe for social approval, especially since so much of what they say is absolute nonsense?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Aside from fraud, or some liberal interpretation of things due to wishful thinking, how could one ever know an animal is actually using language rather than just "doing things" for reward? If you teach Koko some hand configuration for "blue", then teach her to make that configuration in response to the question "what is your favorite color", it will appear that she's answering, but how would we know?

By given her a number of cards and asking her to point to the colour. If you ask her her favourite colour and she says "chicken", sure, but if she says "blue", prefers blue objects, and can identify blue from other colours, doesn't that demonstrate that she does indeed know what 'blue' is?
As I said, I haven't spent 38 years with her like her trainers have, so I can only comment on what data they've published and speculate as to the theory behind it.

 

[Chesterton]

By given her a number of cards and asking her to point to the colour. If you ask her her favourite colour and she says "chicken", sure, but if she says "blue", prefers blue objects, and can identify blue from other colours, doesn't that demonstrate that she does indeed know what 'blue' is?
As I said, I haven't spent 38 years with her like her trainers have, so I can only comment on what data they've published and speculate as to the theory behind it.

I'm not questioning whether Koko could distinguish blue or prefer it. I know my dog prefers some stimuli over others (smell of meat over smell of vegetables, for instance). I'm questioning how we could ever know that Koko knows she is using language to communicate any idea about blue. When she "answers a question" how do we know she is not just performing an action for which she's been rewarded in the past? We don't know that she knows she's answering a question.

And I'm being generous in allowing that she answers questions at all. When you said she could talk to anyone, that prompted me to read the transcript from Koko's AOL chat here. Have you read this?